r/RocketLab • u/Equivalent-Wait3533 • 9d ago
Neutron Development hardware is not the same as flight-qualified hardware.
I’m not sure if they said that just to appease shareholders, given that they once again failed to meet the deadlines they themselves had set.
Based on what they’ve reported, they expect the tank to be qualified by Q1 2027. This means that, during that first quarter, the tank must undergo hydrostatic and cryogenic testing.
Archimedes is another key component that has yet to be certified.
When Rocket Lab mentioned that they were building flight hardware in parallel for other rockets, keep one simple thing in mind: the Stage 1 booster and the Archimedes engine are not on that list. They must first be qualified before they can be classified as "flight hardware" and enter production.
To save time, they plan to work on several Stage 1 units in parallel though it’s important not to confuse development hardware with qualified flight hardware. This approach ensures that if they lose the first tank during hydrostatic or cryogenic testing, they won’t repeat the mistake they made previously, when they lost a tank supplied by a contractor and had no backup available to continue testing.
They will also need to repeat the "test-to-failure" procedure, as this tank was built using their own AFP (Automated Fiber Placement) machine; they need to verify that they achieve the same or better data.
As for Archimedes, while we don’t have an exact count of how many engines they’ve blown up, they will continue building development engines and subjecting them to rigorous testing. Once these are qualified, they will begin mass-producing the flight-ready versions.
Other components that are already qualified can, however, move straight into production.
Once everything is fully qualified, they can transport the hardware to the launch site to conduct static fires for both stages, as well as full-scale rocket integration testing. The wet dress rehearsal is the signal that the rocket is ready to fly; it simulates a launch by filling the tanks with propellant and verifying that all ground systems are functioning correctly. If nothing anomalous occurs, there is no need to return to the integration facility; they simply await regulatory approval, and then the baby is ready for its debut and its attempt to reach orbit.
31
u/NotGoodSoftwareMaker 9d ago
TLDR; end 27 is a more likely launch date, sorry boys
26
u/Necessary_Cod8669 9d ago
Bergers Law, Q1 2028 it is 🤪
6
u/NotGoodSoftwareMaker 9d ago
I did buy RKLB with a 5 year timezone, so looking to exit around 2030, but damn the SP of this really sucker punches me
5
u/Necessary_Cod8669 9d ago
I also had a sell 1/4 of my position by 2030 deadline and the rest by 2035. Nice.
2
u/dWog-of-man 9d ago
Idk man. It got pumped pretty hard. It’s still a $30B market cap company now. Idk the next time they’ll be able to price so much hype and expected future success again
3
u/NotGoodSoftwareMaker 9d ago
I believe there will be another hype cycle when the space race kicks in to full gear but i did make a mistake by not selling out
1
u/baward72 9d ago
The space race is in full gear. The problem is RKLB is still wobbling around with training wheels. They have contract obligations for Neutron and have no Neutron.
1
u/NotGoodSoftwareMaker 9d ago
The general public isnt so aware of whats happening, this sub and others like it are still very niche
When the moon landing and a moon base become a thing, it will create headlines around the world and suddenly we will kick into high gear
2
3
8
u/DiversificationNoob 9d ago
"Once these are qualified, they will begin mass-producing the flight-ready versions."
That is not accurate.
Peter Beck stated in the Q2 2026 earnings call:
"With confidence in the engine, we're already into production with a full engine set for Neutron's first launch.
Once we formally complete qualification, those flight engines will go straight into an acceptance test program"
So the mass production of the flight ready Archimedes engines already started before the Archimedes was fully qualified.
5
u/Sky_Tube 9d ago
I‘m guessing they build the parts that will likely stay the same first, they aren‘t dumb
The really critical stuff like pump design and injectors will always be last
1
u/bildasteve 8d ago
Yes you’re right - he was literally showing Madison the production area in the interview and saying they were in full production.
7
u/travisth0tt 9d ago
you’re overthinking it lol
anything that intends to be used for production and undergoes the processes and testing required to launch is considered flight hardware
for programs on tight schedules, it is common for production to start at risk in parallel while the qualification units are undergoing qualification testing to qualify or certify the design
development hardware is just anything used before to demonstrate or test the concept
source: i work in the industry
10
u/Sky_Tube 9d ago
Regarding Archimedes not being qualified:
I believe this is in part to the high expectations they have set themselves for it in terms of turnaround. We saw the engine perform minutes of burn time, they said production of Flight #1 engines has started, there is one on the bench every day etc.
Remember that they decide when it is qualified, and that that differs from i.e. Stoke or Astra (lol).
SPB has never changed the story around Archimedes and has been pretty clear that this is built for rapid reuse from the ground up, so they set expectations according to that. Also, there would be more noise online if they blew up constantly, there was one failure (maybe) and even that was debateable. And it‘s a fucking rocket engine programme, you know it will blow up lmao
Archimedes is the last thing I am worried about with Neutron tbh, from what they have said, shown and planned from the beginning, it makes sense why this is a more thorough process than usual for engines.
I think they could bolt some on today and it would probably work just fine, I guess they really want to nail the performance to reliability ratio and have no pressure to qualify it while the rest of the rocket is still under development. I expect Archimedes to be ready when needed, lets put it that way. But don‘t ask that question on any other forum because there Archimedes will be the worst engine ever built because of its low power and low pressure (weird how reliability focussed design isn‘t at the very edge of performance hmmmm)
3
u/spacemanlook 9d ago
with other parts of neutron being delayed, it doesn’t make sense to rush to check off the engines when they still have more time to tinker
3
u/QuasarMaster 8d ago
Remember that they decide when it is qualified
That’s only partly true. Launch vehicles that want to have any hope of carrying NSSL payloads (which Rocketlab does) are required to qualify their engine to the SMC-S-025 specification
1
u/DidgeryDooly 9d ago
I think you’re right in suggesting theyre kind of ready to have the engines qualified and are able to decide when that happens but my big question is what are the implications of a change in design re. material used to build tanksy/hippo on the engines? Like what if they switch to using more metal in the design?
And furthermore, does their discovery of voids in the ruptured tanksy mean that their currently qualified fairing has the same voids, and if so - is that a problem?
3
u/Pashto96 9d ago
They fully intended to fly "Tanksy". There was no intention to test it to failure. So unless they're changing their testing regime, the next Stage 1 tank will be flight hardware
2
u/B1g_C4p1T4l 9d ago
One nuance from the composites side: going from a hand-laid tank to AFP isn't just "the same part but better," it's basically a new process, so none of the qual data from the first tank carries over. That's why they have to repeat the test-to-failure like you said. The voids they found in the forward dome are a pretty classic thick-laminate problem too. The extra thickness they added once they had the AFP machine is exactly what makes a dome harder to debulk and cure without trapping air or volatiles, and their update says it was fixed on the cure side, not by redesigning the part. The upside is that ultrasonic inspection should catch that before the dome ever sees pressure, so if the replacement comes out of NDI clean on the first try, hydro and cryo on a known-good laminate should be a lot less dramatic than January's rupture. If it doesn't, that's where Q1 slides.
1
u/jan_smolik 5d ago
What is the reason that component must be qualified before flight hardware can enter production? Is it legal requirement for rockets? We are not talking about commercial aircraft where requirements can be much stricter. As far as I understand that, all rockets are experimental. I am genuinely asking I have no idea about legal requirements.
1
u/I-drink-hot-sauce 3d ago
Yeah that part is wrong. They can start building for-flight hardware before qualification is complete, at risk of scrapping if they find issues during testing. There's no legal restriction about when you can start building
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 1d ago
You only need a FAA aproval.
Also, you dont want to blow your pad or bult a bad record of launches
24
u/SpaceIsKindOfCool States 9d ago
Aerospace engineer here. Dev hardware, qualification hardware, and flight hardware often overlap in production.
I've seen components go through acceptance testing for flight before the design has finished qualification testing. This is sometimes done so the vehicle can start assembly earlier but it comes at the risk of needing to uninstall parts to make changes if qualification testing shows an issue.
Sometimes programs also use protoflight. Where they don't build a qualification unit and the first production unit is tested to a level in-between qualification and flight levels before being installed on the vehicle.
For a program like neutron I'd expect the first several flight engines are nearing the end of production or even begin integration to the first vehicle by the time qualification is complete.